City Government

Census Brings Unpleasant Surprise for State Politicians

These maps show the estimated shifts in population between the 2000 Census and 2009. As has been true for decades, upstate regions continue to lose population.

New York state received a nasty surprise from the Census Bureau on Dec. 21. According to the first results from census 2010, the state has 163,351 fewer people than the bureau estimated it did on July 1, 2009. As a result, New York will lose two congressional seats, bringing its total down to 27, tying it with Florida.

The loss of two congressional seats will set off a huge redistricting fight. Beyond representation in Congress, the diminished New York state population will have a major impact on the amount of federal aid that the state receives.

The Missing New Yorkers

If New York's population had matched the July 1, 2009 estimate, it would have lost only one seat. If the estimated rate of growth in the population from 2008 to 2009 had continued to April 1, 2010, then the state would have 19,596,910 residents, some 218,808 more than the 19,378,102 persons who were actually enumerated.

This chart compares the population count in the 2000 census and the year-to-year estimates with the final count in 2010. The purple indicates how much larger the 2010 count would have been if the estimated trends had continued. (Click on the chart to view a larger image.)

Demographers and politicos are scratching their heads trying to figure out how this happened and what the implications will be. Unlike California, which has already claimed an undercount and protests the census results , New York state is still contemplating the impact and sources of this apparent population loss.

An examination into which parts of the state were overestimated or undercounted is necessary. Once the redistricting data are released in March, we will have much better information.

In general, though, there are three possible explanations:

-- The procedure by which the census creates estimates is flawed.

-- There are problems with the census 2010 count.

-- The 2000 count may have been somewhat inflated, and the new count reflects a return to reality.

Each of these explanations could be true in various ways. The census estimates are based upon births and deaths and international and domestic migration. Immigration -- foreign or domestic -- is particularly hard to capture, and the number of immigrants to New York state may have declined. Foreign immigration would mostly affect the city and downstate, while domestic immigration is important upstate.

New York state has many "hard to count" areas, especially in the city. Though major efforts were made to count residents from these areas, it may be that the backlash from 9/11 and a perceived increase in anti-immigration sentiment led some immigrants to be less willing to participate in the census than they were in 2000. Similar problems may have affected upstate, if the census outreach was ineffective.

Finally, technical issues related to the addition of extra addresses arising from a census check of addresses in 2000 may have led to duplication. If so, it is possible that the city population was somewhat overcounted in 2000. Since the census numbers from 2000 become the base for the census estimates, if those extra addresses were removed or the Census Bureau eliminated more duplicate addresses, then the population in the city, especially in parts of Queens and Brooklyn would be less than was estimated.

Up for Grabs

Whatever the reason for the lower count in New York State, the implications for congressional redistricting are massive. Most of the population losses occurred in upstate New York, while the gains were in areas in and around the city, most particularly in outer ring suburbs.

The table below shows each district's population gain or loss, and some characteristics of the district, including the current incumbent, his or her party, the member's vote in the November elections and the degree to which the districts deviates from the ideal population size of 717,707 people.

District

Party

Name

Incumbent

2010 Vote Percentage

Pop 2000

Estimated Population 2010

Change from 2000

Deviation from Ideal

% Deviation

1

Dem

Timothy Bishop

Yes

50.05

654,360

713,122

58,762

-4,586

-0.64%

2

Dem

Steve Israel

Yes

56.60

654,360

687,889

33,529

-29,819

-4.15%

3

Rep

Peter King

Yes

72.00

654,361

653,477

-884

-64,230

-8.95%

4

Dem

Carolyn McCarthy

Yes

53.70

654,360

657,810

3,450

-59,897

-8.35%

5

Dem

Gary Ackerman

Yes

62.40

654,361

699,143

44,782

-18,565

-2.59%

6

Dem

Gregory Meeks

Yes

94.90

654,361

654,564

203

-63,144

-8.80%

7

Dem

Joseph Crowley

Yes

79.70

654,360

673,522

19,162

-44,186

-6.16%

8

Dem

Jerrold Nadler

Yes

75.00

654,360

695,491

41,131

-22,217

-3.10%

9

Dem

Anthony Weiner

Yes

58.50

654,360

691,231

36,871

-26,476

-3.69%

10

Dem

Edolphus Towns

Yes

91.00

654,361

680,793

26,432

-36,915

-5.14%

11

Dem

Yvette Clarke

Yes

90.30

654,361

668,394

14,033

-49,314

-6.87%

12

Dem

Nydia Velazquez

Yes

92.90

654,360

688,434

34,074

-29,273

-4.08%

13

Rep

Mike Grimm

No

51.50

654,361

698,637

44,276

-19,071

-2.66%

14

Dem

Carolyn Maloney

Yes

74.90

654,361

666,335

11,974

-51,372

-7.16%

15

Dem

Charles Rangel

Yes

79.90

654,361

661,747

7,386

-55,961

-7.80%

16

Dem

Jose E. Serrano

Yes

95.40

654,360

684,421

30,061

-33,287

-4.64%

17

Dem

Eliot Engel

Yes

72.10

654,360

668,910

14,550

-48,797

-6.80%

18

Dem

Nita Lowey

Yes

62.00

654,360

669,824

15,464

-47,883

-6.67%

19

Rep

Nan Hayworth

No

52.80

654,361

709,848

55,487

-7,859

-1.10%

20

Rep

Christopher Gibson

No

55.40

654,360

675,617

21,257

-42,091

-5.86%

21

Dem

Paul Tonko

Yes

59.30

654,361

660,109

5,748

-57,599

-8.03%

22

Dem

Maurice Hinchey

Yes

52.40

654,361

662,365

8,004

-55,342

-7.71%

23

Dem

Bill Owens

Yes

48.10

654,361

652,743

-1,618

-64,965

-9.05%

24

Rep

Richard Hanna

No

52.90

654,361

633,497

-20,864

-84,210

-11.73%

25

Rep

Ann Marie Buerkle

No

50.20

654,361

646,863

-7,498

-70,845

-9.87%

26

Rep

Christopher Lee

Yes

73.80

654,361

646,879

-7,482

-70,829

-9.87%

27

Dem

Brian Higgins

Yes

60.80

654,361

624,284

-30,077

-93,423

-13.02%

28

Dem

Louise Slaughter

Yes

65.20

654,360

604,913

-49,447

-112,795

-15.72%

29

Rep

Thomas Reed

No

56.50

654,361

647,243

-7,118

-70,465

-9.82%

As the table makes plain, Districts 1 through 19 will need to lose one seat, while districts 20 through 29 will lose the second seat. Though District 28, represented by Louise Slaughter, and District 27, represented by Brian Higgins, are the farthest below the new ideal of 717,707, it will require 10 districts becoming only 9 to make upstate districts conform to population equality. Similarly, even though most districts in the downstate area have been growing, the 19 downstate districts will need to become 18 to leave New York with the 27 seats to which it is entitled.

Thanks to the new census count, New York state is now in for two separate games of musical chairs to find out which representatives will no longer have seats to call their own.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.

The comments section is provided as a free service to our readers. Gotham Gazette's editors reserve the right to delete any comments. Some reasons why comments might get deleted: inappropriate or offensive content, off-topic remarks or spam.

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Gotham Gazette is published by Citizens Union Foundation and is made possible by support from the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Altman Foundation,the Fund for the City of New York and donors to Citizens Union Foundation. Please consider supporting Citizens Union Foundation's public education programs. Critical early support to Gotham Gazette was provided by the Charles H. Revson Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.